Your Right to Know

WASHINGTON — By naming Rep. Jim Jordan to a special committee on the 2012 attack on a U.S.
consulate in Libya, House Speaker John Boehner has picked a lawmaker who already has devoted
countless hours to the investigation.

Jordan, R-Urbana, a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has spent
months investigating the Sept. 11, 2012, attack at a consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that took the
lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

The attack initially was billed as a spontaneous reaction to anti-Muslim videos posted online in
the United States. Within days, however, it became clear that it was a terrorist attack.

Two different House committees — the Intelligence Committee and the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform — have investigated the attack. In announcing the creation of a select committee
last week, Boehner, R-West Chester, said he was attempting to streamline current investigations in
hopes of getting to the truth faster.

“This investigation is about getting answers for the families of the victims and for the
American people,” Boehner said yesterday. “These members have each demonstrated a commitment to
this goal, and I have confidence that they will lead a serious, fact-based inquiry.”

“When considering the appointments for this committee — a committee that I expect to carry out
an investigation worthy of the American lives lost in Benghazi, fellow Ohioan Jim Jordan was a
natural choice,” Boehner said. “He has proven that he’s as determined and persistent as they come.”&
amp; amp; lt; /p>

Democrats have five seats on the panel.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said yesterday that the Republican-controlled
committee was a “kangaroo court” and a “political stunt.” But the Democratic leadership team
remains divided about whether it should boycott the committee, participate fully or find some
middle ground.

“A lot of people say, ‘Just let them show who they are with all of this,’ ” Pelosi said. “Any
of our witnesses can hold their own in that venue. They don’t need us there to protect them. And
then there’s another school of thought that says: ‘We’ve seen how they operate. We think we should
be there.’ ”

Later, in a letter to Boehner, she held firm to her objections, saying the current rules would
not prevent a repeat of the “unacceptable and repeated abuses” that she said have occurred in the
parallel investigation by House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa of California.

“We don’t want a kangaroo court,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. “We think that this whole
Benghazi hearing is a waste of taxpayer dollars, but if at the very least they’re going to
establish a fair process, then we could participate.”

John Feehery, a former spokesman for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Democrats
run the risk of not being in the loop or having any input if they boycott the panel. But if they
participate, they risk giving the panel some legitimacy that “they don’t think is necessarily
deserved.”

He said the selection of Jordan was part of an attempt by Boehner to seek balance on the
committee.

“I think he wants a combination of people who are firebrands — which would explain Jordan — and
folks who are probably a little more even-tempered,” he said, adding that Boehner appears to have
sought regional and gender balance, as well as seeking members with a prosecutorial background,
such as Brooks.

Jim Manley, a former spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he thinks
Democrats should boycott the panel.

“As far as I’m concerned, no Democrat should participate in these hearings,” he said, calling it
an attempt to capitalize on the attack in the lead-up to elections in November.

During a panel discussion for the Heritage Foundation yesterday, Jordan said the new committee
must answer three questions: What happened before the attack, what happened during the attack and
what happened after the attack.

Before the attack, he said, more than 200 requests for additional security were denied. During
the attack, there was little effort to fight back. “Why weren’t we running to the sound of the
guns?” he asked. And after it, he said, he wants to know who started the narrative that it wasn’t a
terrorist attack.

“There’s unanswered questions,” Jordan said. “The committees that have been looking at this have
worked hard on it, but sometimes it’s just more effective and efficient to have one central place
where you’re going to gather that information, answer those three questions and ultimately get to
the truth.”

Information from the Associated Press and The New York Times was included in this story.